[godelski]

> We need to rather argue that the moral cost and side-effects of public surveillance far outweighs its usefulness.

The argument I make is that it is more cost effective to develop a society where one does not need to commit crimes to get by in the first place. Law enforcement is reactionary and can only punish when crimes are already committed. While we shouldn't get rid of law enforcement, because crime will always exist, let's look to societies that have low crime (and societies that have high crime) and see what we can learn from them (and improve upon). Such policy is far more advantageous for citizens.

[pbhjpbhj]

It's very clear that the people in power in the UK and USA don't want the law to be enforced. They seemingly don't want low-crime society, they want only to be immune to prosecution themselves.

Your idea seems predicated on people in general being benevolent towards others. That's not going to work, there's a significant motivated cadre who want to do terrible things provided they 'win'. You don't enlist Cambridge Analytica when you think you're right, you do that sorry of thing when you don't care about being right/moral/legal but only about subjugating others.

[vonmoltke]

> You don't enlist Cambridge Analytica when you think you're right, you do that sorry of thing when you don't care about being right/moral/legal but only about subjugating others.

Be careful about how you frame that. While this is true of some people who engage in activities like this, there is also the "ends justify the means" group. The latter does believe what they are doing is right and moral, and that being right and moral justifies behavior that is illegal. It's easy to be cynical and assume that the latter group is just the former group deluding themselves, but there are people who genuinely think that way. Addressing them requires a different approach than addressing those who just want power and control by any means.

[godelski]

I see this line of thinking frequently, especially in modern politics, and it always fascinates me. I can get people to agree that the system is messed up because it is a race to the bottom. I can get people to agree that someone needs to draw a line in the sand for it to stop. I can get most people to agree that sacrificing moral values in an effort to win results in a hollow victory (and encourages the race to the bottom). But the interesting part is that my opinion that one needs to hold their own tribe accountable for sacrificing morals is extremely controversial. Yet I see it as logically following from the above.

I think this is why we can see people gladly vote for those that they very much disagree with. I think this is why attacking someone's tribal leader makes them double down and strengthens their convictions rather than changing belief. I think the question is how to get people to realize that you have to fight fair to get others to fight you back with fairness.

[craftinator]

If you have the time, I'd highly recommend writing this argument as a blog post; it deserves a higher and more exclusive visibility than it gets as embedded in these forums.

[godelski]

I think if you find that you poll a random set of people, most of them are (for the most part) benevolent towards one another. So I think it is disingenuous to talk about people in power and then apply that to people in general when these two have different behaviors. The point of democracies are to increase the robustness of governments to help discourage abuse of those in power while providing mechanisms to remove those that do abuse that power. Obviously this can be improved, but that's a different conversation all together.